WON HOF 2013 discussion

[Loss]

Even a HOF based entirely on drawing would be a clusterfuck. Context surrounding any big numbers is still needed, and people would still debate. That's the fun of it.

[Matt D]

It's a clusterfuck, yes, and it's more about the historiography of wrestling than the history of wrestling.

[Loss]

It's a clusterfuck, yes, and it's more about the historiography of wrestling than the history of wrestling.

This is the most perfect description of the WON HOF I have ever seen.

[KrisZ]

If you make it about work then guys like The Sheik & Abdullah the Butcher wouldn't get in

 

If you make it about drawing then guys like Benoit & Dynamite Kid wouldn't get in

[JerryvonKramer]

Why was Ken Shamrock on the ballot?

[Loss]

Pretty significant figure in the early days of Pancrase, which launched MMA in Japan and changed pro wrestling in Japan in a significant way. I wouldn't vote for him, but I can see why he's discussed.

[cm funk]

I feel like Dave is just arguing against himself at this point

 

I'd put Sabu in the hall of fame, take him for example. Super over in the 90's, iconic, all that. Not everyone is a fan of his work style, but you can't argue that he got over and popped crowds. He entertained. Revisionism might say that he exemplified that culture of "garbage wrestling", but according to Dave, "you weren't there so you can't understand"

 

I was there. And I understand. And that's why he belongs in the WON HOF. Way ahead of some bs like Tanahashi getting voted in in 2013, which is laughable

[S.L.L.]

It's a clusterfuck, yes, and it's more about the historiography of wrestling than the history of wrestling.

This is the most perfect description of the WON HOF I have ever seen.

 

Maybe that's the real reason Meltzer doesn't feel the need to put himself on the ballot. The HOF is already all about him.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just did a search to see if that is the first time anyone has used the word "historiography" on this board. Remarkably it isn't. Several uses over the years. El-P was the first in 2009. As a basis of comparison, I ran that same search term on a couple of other wrestling forums I've been to, which have been around for longer than PWO:

 

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

Nothing matches your search parameters!

Also, thanks Loss for clearing up Ken Shamrock question.

[Loss]

It's a clusterfuck, yes, and it's more about the historiography of wrestling than the history of wrestling.

This is the most perfect description of the WON HOF I have ever seen.

 

Maybe that's the real reason Meltzer doesn't feel the need to put himself on the ballot. The HOF is already all about him.

 

This is the second most perfect description of the WON HOF I have ever seen (although I think Dave is too nice of a guy to think about something that consciously).

[BrickHithouse]

Get a cardboard box and have 300 people take a shit in it then write "WON HOF" on the outside.

[El Boricua]

If you take Dave's argument seriously, it's hard to imagine why he would bother running pieces like Pat's Henri Deglane bio.

 

On a different subject Dave mentioned in passing Puerto Rico in the HoF issue and the issues with trying to categorize Colon. He noted that he couldn't include Invader I on the ballot without people wanting to "lynch" him. That seemed to me to be a tacit admission that Invader I would be a decent candidate, even though that' is clearly never going to happen. My question is, is there anyone else from PR who could arguably merit inclusion on the ballot? I was thinking about it last night and I have to say I think you can make a case for Chicky Starr at least being on the ballot. I was curious what Boricua thinks about that (or anyone else for that matter).

I think the whole problem about where to categorize Colon is that the most logical place to put him (a Caribbean, Central & South America pool) is not an option because 1) it doesn't exist; 2) much is unknown about the region (even Puerto Rico to an extent among the electorate); 3) who else could be a candidate besides Carlos Colon, and 4) where would you get enough credible voters for such a region. Of the existing categories, and I understand why many don't see it as logical fit, the 'correct' one would be the modern U/S/Canada performers group. I say 'correct' in quotes because of how PR is viewed as some far off, disconnected land from the rest of the territories/companies in that group (it's interesting how from my local viewpoint this is the category that makes the most sense of the existing ones, but from the mainland viewpoint PR is not seen as fitting in that category).

 

Still, I'd rather Carlos Colon not be put in that group. If he's put in that group he'll never get in and might even fall off the ballot. And I think this is also why Mr. Meltzer has trouble in categorizing where to put him. I get the feeling that he believes Carlos should be in and knows that he would not fare well at all if placed in the Modern U.S. category because of Brody's death. So you combine the narrative attached because of Brody's death and the lack of familiarity/detachment of PR wrestling from what is typically viewed as Modern U.S., and that leaves you without a good category fit for Carlos Colon. The current placement with the Australian candidates is basically a cop out, a "throw your hands up in the air and say screw it, I don't' have any other place to put him" solution. The problem is that Carlos Colon sticks out like a sore thumb in that category. It's not fair to him and it's not fair to the Australian candidates for them to be in the same group. How many people are actually knowledgeable on Puerto Rico wrestling and Australian wrestling to be able to vote fairly in that category? I assume that would be quite the microscopic Venn diagram.

 

You end up with a situation where you have people only voting for Colon in that category (which counts against the Australian candidates) and you have legitimate Australian voters voting for their region's performers and likely not voting for Colon (which counts against Colon). And honestly, I can't fault either voter for doing that because they are voting on what they know. It just so happens that they end up hurting the other candidates because of how the group is set up. I wonder how many voters the category would have if you subtract the voters in that group that only vote for Carlos Colon?

 

To be fair, the decision to put Carlos in that group seems to be the only decent option of the ones available and it would have worked out fine if Carlos Colon had been elected already. Instead, he's missed out by razor thin margins the past few years and the longer him being in that group drags out, the more unfair I think it becomes to the other candidates from that region. Plus, there's the cynic in me that finds it odd that he's missed by such short margins (a no to the category vote or two would be enough to block him considering the voting group's size for this bucket).

 

The solution that makes the most sense is a Caribbean, Central & South America pool, but you run into the problems I outlined above. I couldn't begin to tell you if Jack Veneno & Relampago Hernandez from the Dominican Republic, Jose Azzari from Guatemala, and others are worthy ballot nominees because my knowledge here is basically null. It's an area still unexplored for the most part in terms of research. Martin Karadagian, were he not already in, would have been a shoo in for such a candidate pool.

 

To Dylan's question about who from PR could be placed on a ballot for consideration (besides obviously Carlos Colon):

 

Truthfully, the second best candidate is Invader 1. I agree that Mr. Meltzer noting that he couldn't include Invader I on the ballot without people wanting to "lynch" him appears to be a tacit admission that Invader I would be a decent candidate (absent the obvious baggage there).

 

Believe it or not, another strong candidate I see is Hugo Savinovich.

 

Chicky Starr would be solid as a ballot nominee. He basically carried the heel side from 86 through 90 as wrestler, manager, mouthpiece, interview segment host and sometimes commentator. His return in the late 90's-early 00's also was good, if not as essential as his earlier run. Plus, he's definitely part of Puerto Rican pop culture. The man did spawn the use of the phrase "Bregando a la Chicky Starr" in the local vernacular.

 

Jose Rivera was one of the notable faces in the late 70's but didn't do anything down here in the 80's, being in the WWF instead. Jose Estrada had his runs as Super Medico, but outside of the feud with the Invaders in 84 wasn't really too much on top. I wouldn't put them on the ballot although they get a gazillion bonus points for being the Conquistadors.

 

Hercules Ayala doesn't have anything notable on his resume other than his nearly two year feud with Carlos Colon. He was at most the number three face when he was in WWC (he would not be there for stretches during the 80's) before turning heel.

 

Of the other Invaders, #3 is the closest to be a ballot nominee, but probably falls short

 

Guys like Abdullah, Brody, Hansen and the Funks) are already in and would be without PR being factored into the equation.

 

Huracan Castillo Sr. was a top heel in the 70's here but don't know if his work before that in other territories would make him a viable ballot nominee.

 

Miguel Perez Sr. is interesting. He was originally the top face star while they established Carlos Colon. The perception of his work before that is (to paraphrase Jim Cornette) the guy who teams with the guy that draws the money (Rocca). I honestly don't know if that's basically true or if there is more meat there than he is given credit for. Might be more at place in the Historical U.S category.

 

Pedro Morales didn't do much locally to add to his case and is in the correct voting pool.

 

Of Savio Vega, Huracan Castillo Jr. and Miguel Perez Jr., I'd say Savio/TNT would be the best one for being on the ballot.

 

Ray Gonzalez I could see on a ballot, but if you think Buddy Rose has big fish, small pond problems...

 

Eddie Gilbert and Dutch Mantel were successful in their booking runs but that's not enough to put them in a PR ballot pool. I don't know if Dick Murdoch's early 90's run helps moves the needle for him (probably not).

 

Well, Victor Jovica and Victor Quinonez on the promotional side could be ballot nominees. People like Joaquin Padin and Eliud Gonzalez would deserve local recognition but may be a stretch for ballot nominees I'd think.

 

For the future, I'd be interested in seeing how Ricky Banderas/Mesias's career ends up.

 

Am I missing anyone?

[KrisZ]

I haven't listened to today's podcast about the HOF but Dave said that he doesn't think he has any influence on anyone's votes regarding the HOF.........

[Matt D]

Well, of course, Kris. It's not like Edge made it in.

[Dylan Waco]

Excellent post as always from Boricua.

 

I am curious, because after I mentioned Chicky, I started to mention Hugo, so I want to ask - who was more important or viewed as more significant? I ahve seen very little of Hugo as a manager, but I know he was a key heel act and similar to Starr in some ways.

 

My argument for Chicky - and I'm not at all sure he should be in - is that he was sort of a hybrid between Bobby Heenan and Jimmy Hart. He was the guy asked to carry the heel side in terms of promos, setting up angles, delivering the payoff on angles, and in many cases working matches. One thing I would like to know is how many Puerto Ricans have a good command of English? I have no earthly idea and feel like an idiot for even asking, but that would matter to me in some respects, because Starr being a mouthpiece for guys with a language barrier adds to his value and effectiveness.

[jdw]

Meltzer from The Board, talking about the age requirement for the HoF

 

An age limit is a red herring with Benoit.

 

If he killed his wife and son five years later, he'd have been 45. The NFL enshrined O.J. because he waited five years after retiring to kill his ex-wife.

Dec 1979 - OJ retires

Jan 1985 - OJ Elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame

Jun 1994 - OJ kills Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman

 

Five years, give or take 15.

 

 

Same thing could happen here. Plenty of sports where you don't have teams forcing retirements put people in Halls of Fame when active and with limited age restrictions. Team sports are different because you can't hang on based on your name for very long.

 

Argument makes no sense that an age limit would have prevented another Benoit from going in because a man can commit a crime at any age.

I never really cared about the argument of we need to change the age from 35 because of Benoit. It certainly wouldn't be mine.

 

 

This is a business that changes way too fast and style and trends change way too fast. If you don't evaluate people close to their time it's going on, you get too much of the goofiness we have where people who understand nothing of a time frame try to evaluate a time frame from other people who understand nothing of a time frame and trying to find limited old matches while not understanding either the style or substance of what they're watching.

That's actually a problem with the voters, not the rule.

 

Steve Austin turned 45 in 2009. If voters didn't understand Austin and the time frame, then Dave shouldn't give them a ballot. It's not terribly complicated.

 

 

John

[jdw]

I'd say most wrestlers peak around their mid 30's, in fact we talked about that with mookie on our show one time, and he had some data in terms of star ratings & awards that back that up.

 

35 is really smack dab in the prime/peak of many, many male performers. I agree that the eligibility is at least a tad too early.

Historically, pro baseball players as a group peaked at the age of 26-27. The PED era changed that, at least for a while.

 

You become eligible 5 years after you retire.

 

Reggie Jackson won his only MVP in 1973 when he was 27. That was his peak, or 1969 which was a flukey year with the change in the strike zone (and lord knows what else). Generally speaking, he peaked from 1971-75.

 

His big 3 HR game in the WS was 1977.

 

He retired after 1987, a decade after the big game, more than a decade after his peak.

 

He hit the ballots in 1993.

 

He got 93.6% of the ballot, which was up near the high end because there always were people playing the "first ballot" bullshit.

 

Of course there are "stats" and "honors" people could look up.

 

On the other hand, the reporters voting were actually reporters who covered chunks of his career: you have to be a reporter for 10+ years to get a ballot.

 

45 year old isn't remotely close to being far enough away from the "peak" of any newcomers career for a voter to not vote him in. And again... if they don't know enough about those obvious guys, then they shouldn't have a ballot.

[ohtani's jacket]

Meltzer seems to want to catch the zeitgeist of critical opinion based on the quoted comments. Fine, so make it about work and work alone. I think the whole thing is a clusterfuck.

No Hall of Fame is perfect. If the WON HOF were perfect then there wouldn't be any room for debate and where would the fun be in that?

[Timbo Slice]

Eh, that's a weak argument. Debate doesn't happen because a HOF has flimsy standards. Debate happens because the standards are so high that you're raising the bar for present and future candidates. If that bar keeps getting lower, all you're going to do is flood it with substandard candidates.

[tim]

It seems to me like the Hall of Fame should broadly recognize the most outstanding contributors to pro wrestling. If that means drawing tons of money and putting asses in seat, fine; if it means exceptional ring work, fine. I think an exceptional case on either end should get someone in and if someone has both then all the better.

 

It's why I think guys like Daniel Bryan and CM Punk probably deserve to be in right now. They presided over the golden age of US Indie wrestling. That might not translate to a lot of dollars or asses in seats but it translates to a huge productive contribution to professional wrestling and they are two of the guys most responsible for a several year run of an entire scene of wrestling that got massive critical praise and looking back feels like a really special era. There's something of an argument for Tanahashi in this outlook, yes, as he's on top in what must be conceded to be an era of overwhelming critical acclaim for New Japan; but a big difference is that Tanahashi is presiding over NJPW during a serious down period in business and overall profile while guys like Punk and Bryan presided over the US indies during their modern zenith.

[Childs]

I'm a proponent of making them all wait, but I don't see any good argument for putting Punk and Danielson in now while making Tanahashi wait. I'm a huge Danielson fan, but being the top star in ROH just doesn't strike me as a major point on a HOF resume.

[jdw]

Dave:

Changing the age would do more harm than good.

 

I doubt Akira Maeda or any of the Japanese women would have gotten in at 45 even though they clearly belonged. Things change in the U.S., Japan more, styles, and things.

Maeda

DOB: 1959

Debut: 1978

 

If there was a 45 year old requirement, Maeda would have hit the ballot in 2004. If there was a "45 year old or 20 years after debut", Maeda would have hit in 1998. If it was 45/25, he would have hit in 2003.

 

It's frankly impossible for Maeda to have not hit the HOF in 1998.

 

It also is insane to think that he wouldn't have made it if he hit the ballot in 2003 or 2004. Toyota made it in 2002, hadn't been relevant for years, and never was the star in Japan that Maeda was. "Japanese Voters" would know this, unless Dave gave out ballots to a lot of people who aren't really knowledgeable about Puroresu.

 

 

If people are not evaluated close to "their time," you get situations where it's like the evaluations of the guys from the 50s and 60s today. Let's just say that people who were around and lived through that period mock how certain people are perceived by Hall of Fame electorate because they lived and know better.

I'm guessing that Dave thinks we missed a lot of obvious candidates from the US and Japan who peaked in the 1950s and 1960s when putting together the classes of 1996 and 1997. You know... guys who were as big of stars in those countries as Maeda was in Japan.

 

I'm drawing a blank, though. We missed Hans Schmidt, though the irony there is that Dave fought that candidacy for ages.

 

Curtis Iaukea didn't get in for just the US or Japan stuff, so I don't think he counts... and frankly think he's one of the most marginal people in the HOF. He's the probably the worst of the "Dropped Dead" Hall of Famers.

 

So... um... yeah, who exactly did we miss? Kinji Shibuya? The was Dave's backyard, and by 1996 he was suppose to be one of the leading experts on San Fran wrestling. If Dave didn't think he was much of a candidate, it's a tough sell. In large part if Shibuya goes in, it's because (i) he Dropped Dead and got the big write up, and (ii) all of the top candidates from Shibuya's career are already in and were put in the 1996 class.

 

So I've got to say that if Dave and I and a few other people didn't completely fuck up the 50s and 60s when selecting in 1996 (25+ years after the end of that era), how in the hell can we excuse a bunch of fuck ups who in 2003/04 didn't know that Maeda was a slam dunk HOF just 15 years after he was the first guy to pack the Tokyo Dome and... wait for it... yep... just 4 years after Dave wouldn't have written up a massive bio when Maeda retired in 1999.

 

"Does this make logic?"

 

 

This is an evolving entertainment athletic form.

Entertainment?

 

Sight & Sound 10 Year Polls

 

We might disagree on those movies. But it would appear that the voters in that thingy were able to get knowledgable about old movies:

 

 

01. Vertigo (191 mentions)

02. Citizen Kane (157 mentions)

03. Tokyo Story (107 mentions)

04. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (100 mentions)

05. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (93 mentions)

06. 2001: A Space Odyssey (90 mentions)

07. The Searchers (78 mentions)

08. Man with a Movie Camera (68 mentions)

09. The Passion of Joan of Arc (65 mentions)

10. 8½ (64 mentions)

Closest runner-up: Battleship Potemkin (63 mentions)

 

In fact, none of that is new. The most recent movie was made in 1963.

 

Okay... so is this just more evidence that Dave thinks WON HOF Voters are too stupid to know anything about something that happened a decade ago? If so, then way is Ivan Koloff in the Modern category? If Japan voters weren't smart enough to know Maeda in 2003/04, then how in the hell could Edge fans with Ballots know anything about Ivan?

 

"Oh boy... I'm fucked."

 

 

 

There are guys who were awesome and landmark performers during their time but if watched now, because standards have changed, people who didn't see them in their context wouldn't understand. Same in reverse, some guys stuff today may seem better because it's closer to what is done now than it actually was taken by its audience at its time.

We put Sayama in the HOF in 1996. That was 13 years after he was awesome/landmark. It was 20 years after his debut, and he was 1 year away from turning 40. If the rule was 45/20, he would have been eligible in 1996. If it was 45/25, it would have been 2001... 18 years after his most famous match with Dynamite Kid.

 

Were we just special voters, or does Dave really think Newer Voters are too stupid to remember things 10-15 years after their peak?

 

 

One guy who is in and I don't want to embarrass him with his name, is some that his peers after the election told me after was terrible and you couldn't have a good match with him. He was very well liked, nice guy to everyone, reasonably big star and me writing his bio seemed like a good case. People watching him on the little bit of tape of him said he was this great worker but the guys who worked with him said the opposite. No system is perfect, but I'd like to avoid that as much as possible and evaluating guys as close to their prime as possible is the best way.

Well, that's either Bob Backlund or Hans Schmidt. Since Hans is dead, I'm not sure why Dave would worry about Hans being embarrassed by something written on a board that he'll never read.

 

I'm at a loss to see why Dave would want to avoid having Bob and Hans in the HOF. The irony, of course, is that both were well past 45/25 when they were elected. I also suspect that if there had been a WON HOF in 1965 that Hans would have gone in.

 

 

Also, evaluating drawing power when you weren't there is difficult at best. People who were there have a better idea of why something did or didn't click, than trying to look back at a number and not knowing the context of the number, state of the territory, etc.

Well, going back to context with Maeda:

 

No one packed the Tokyo Dome before he headlined and packed it. He outdrew the New Japan show from earlier in the year.

 

Budokan was almost impossible to sell out before Maeda-Takada did it. You have to go back a ways, and there's a hook to them. After Maeda-Takada, other promotions eventually started selling it out.

 

See? Context isn't hard when it comes to drawing. I wasn't at those shows. I wasn't even watching UWF in 1989, just AJPW and NJPW. I just educated myself to those things by reading.

 

 

John

[jdw]

Also, why are guys like Alan or John Lister or Dave Musgrave qualified to vote for the Rock N Roll or Murdoch? Why is anybody but Jose allowed to vote for the luchadores? Why is anyone younger than jdw qualified to vote for the 1970s guys? This just doesn't make sense.

Here's the thing:

 

I didn't watch any of those guys in the 1970s. I didn't start watching pro wrestling until 1986 when I was 20 years old.

 

By Dave's logic, a lot of us would be limited in what we could vote on. Dave himself would be limited as well: guys like Snyder were well past their peak when he started watching, as was Torres.

 

John

[Jimmy Redman]

(tim) Are you not overrating CM Punk's contribution to the indy scene based on his WWE success?

 

Maybe others will disagree, but at the time when Punk was on the indies, yes he was a big 'star' in that context, but he was on the same level as a few other guys like Ki, Joe, and I'd definitely argue Samoa Joe was a bigger name who worked 'on top' for longer, had better matches and even 'drew' more if you think of things like the Kobashi match.

 

I have no issue with Bryan in this sense because he was 'on top' of the indies and the consensus best wrestler in the world from 2006-09. But Punk, purely in terms of his indy career, doesn't seem on the same level. I certainly don't think you can place Punk and Bryan together on a level above everyone else.

[jdw]

It's really obnoxious that Dave thinks it's completely impossible to evaluate how well something worked unless you watched it as it happened. As if seeing modern workers is what made Brody or Takada's 80s work seem boring as hell. From all the 80s projects it's been REALLY fucking obvious what worked and what didn't, and from what I've seen the same shit that worked then works today, style notwithstanding.

 

His goal seems to be to discredit the people that are watching the footage, but it comes off as a far bigger insult to the actual workers, as that also implies that their work or "entertainment" wasn't good enough to transcend a couple decades. Imagine a movie critic arguing that a pile of shit like Forrest Gump must always be considered a classic because people in 1994 thought it was, and anybody who says otherwise now just don't understand what they're watching.

 

It's pretty clear that the reason he condescends to people who have been going back and re-evaluating footage is because by and large most of his favorites have aged like hot dogshit.

It's either that or Dave thinks most his readers/voters are morons who can't possibly evaluate old footage the right way. I get why he tends to not respond a lot on wrestling boards but is he always so dismissive in person? Do people actually talk about this kind of criticism when they talk to him? Just curious.

 

He and Bruce have the same view, though:

 

* it's largely aimed at those who don't agree with how they view a worker

 

* it may be Dave's idea and Bruce has disagreed with enough people *cough* on work that he agreed with it

 

If we all thought Sayama was great, Dave would be happy. When people watch Flair tapes and think Flair is still great, he'd think they knew what they were seeing. Those MX Matches that the WWE makes trainees watch? "Right on! Er... I mean... that contradicts my point... er... let's just ignore it."

 

Again, I go back to that list of Great Movies. People have been doing it since before Dave was born. People don't always agree with the lists, but still it's a common thing for people to watch/read old forms of entertainment and judge/analyze/rate them. Why is Pro Wrestling different?

 

I don't buy that "athletic entertainment" aspect. It's a visual medium, and a performance one. Plays are as well. As are movies.